Debates on "62 Million Men"

本站添加: 2026-05-06

[00:00:00]This is for all the men, mostly, who are currently focusing their energies on fact-checking the claims about 62 million men and saying, "Actually, it was 62 million visits." Because that's the exact same type of pedantic I also am, and they're right.

[00:00:17]You're right.

[00:00:19]Um in fact, it's a very good point. It's probably fewer than 62 million individuals, right?

[00:00:26]Right.

[00:00:27]So, is it a lot fewer?

[00:00:30]How How many fewer?

[00:00:32]Like on average, how many times a month does one individual visit a site like that, since you seem to know so much about it? You seem to be very, very confident that it's a lot less, right?

[00:00:45]It's a It's a lot fewer individuals that are going to that specific site in one month, February, 28 days, specifically, uh than 62 million individuals.

[00:00:58]I'm just curious how much less. Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you are one of the 62 million that month.

[00:01:08]Any other month? Because again, you know, by the same token that 62 million visits doesn't necessarily mean 62 million individuals, it's also true that everyone who visits that site might not visit every month.

[00:01:19]Right? So, maybe those 62 million views don't even begin to paint a picture of how many individuals are actually going there to that one site of many. Now again, same kind of pedantic, so I think you'll appreciate this, but I decided to do some math, right? I asked myself, "What if a person who visits this site in February does so once an hour, every single hour for that entire month?" So, 24 times a day. It is a little unrealistic, but I figured let's start on the upper limit, right? Which comes out to 672 visits per person.

[00:02:02]Is that Is that about average? Okay. And therefore, 92,261.9 individuals visiting that site once an hour, every single hour, around the clock, every single day of February.

[00:02:20]Um you're right. You're right. 92,000 doesn't seem nearly as bad.

[00:02:28]Um next question. Um is that high enough to be horrifying?

[00:02:34]Is Is Is that enough men to be horrified by? Speaking of which, um you know, you you could just be horrified.

[00:02:43]You could just be horrified. It really is not that much work. In fact, I would I would argue it's it's the path and the reaction that requires the least amount of work.

[00:02:56]Way easier than twisting yourself up into a knot trying to defend it, right? Which is why so many people are wondering why you might be doing that. Now again, pedantic so-and-so, got the fact-checking sign and everything. So, totally the type of thing I would also fact-check or correct, let's say, right? I'd say, "Well, technically, technically, we're talking visits, not men." But you know what I do when um fact-checking something like that?

[00:03:27]I start with, continue with, and end with how horrifying [snorts] it is, regardless.

[00:03:37]And because I am a truly dedicated pedant, I make sure to cover all angles in my practice of pedantry, making sure that when I talk about what a number is really measuring, I also acknowledge the limitations to its scope, right? And And ensure that the proper context and true scale of what it indicates, but doesn't directly measure, is properly understood. I try not to let the precision get in the way of the point.

[00:04:13]That's just a little bit of advice from one pedantic so-and-so to another.